Unfortunately we anticipated the DOJ reversing their prior sentencing recommendations for Michael Flynn and that’s exactly what has happened.
In the 2018 sentencing recommendations prosecutors recommended probation. However following Flynn’s unsuccessful effort to access material evidence favorable to his defense, federal prosecutors under U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr are now requesting Michael Flynn be sent to prison for a sentence of up to six months.

(pdf Link – full DOJ sentencing recommendation)

Flynn is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Emmet Sullivan on Jan. 28, 2020.
The irony here is the DOJ used the threat of FARA charges to compel the guilty plea.  The DOJ then went after Flynn’s former partner Bijan Rafiekian on those exact FARA charges Flynn plead guilty to avoid.  Mr. Rafiekian’s sketchy DOJ conviction was overturned and the indictment against him dismissed in September by a federal judge who said there was insufficient evidence to sustain the case.
The case against Rafiekian was dismissed. However, the case against Flynn, which was based on Flynn’s effort to avoid the case against Rafiekian, will likely see Flynn serving prison time.  No prison for Rafiekian, and prison for Flynn.  Go figure.
(more…)

Sara Carter held a pod-cast interview with HPSCI ranking member Devin Nunes.  At approximately 36:25 of the interview congressman Nunes discusses the testimony of Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson.

The transcript from Atkinson’s House testimony has never been released.  Rep. Nunes states the reason HPSCI Chairman Schiff has kept the transcript hidden and classified is because the content is extremely damaging to the origin of the impeachment fraud.  Additionally, the testimony from Atkinson conflicted with evidence which surfaced later:

“[Atkinson] is under active investigation. I’m not gonna go any farther than that because you know obviously he has a chance to come in and prove his innocence, but my guess is Schiff, Atkinson they don’t want that transcript out because it’s very damaging”… (Link)

CTH has previously outlined ICIG Michael Atkinson as a dirty player amid a network of very corrupt officials who hold self-interests from participating in unlawful abuses of government surveillance including the DOJ and FBI activity during the 2016 election.
(more…)

Yesterday CTH noted 2020 as the year when a variety of prior democrat operations will converge with a single goal in mind. We will see several years effort merging.  Today, more evidence toward that objective is visible.

The House Judiciary Committeee (HJC) argued in the DC court of appeals to obtain the Mueller grand jury information [6(e) material], and compel testimony of former White House counsel Don McGahn.  Also today, more leaks from the inside the administration.
The House has a group of dozens of various DOJ and former Obama officials working on their behalf. That House network also has several currently employed DOJ, FBI, State Department and Intelligence Community officials feeding them information on current real-time events. The HJC are currently arguing the Mueller material and the McGahn testimony are needed for the impeachment trial of President Trump.
First, if the HJC team wins the argument to the three member DC Appellate Court, the DOJ will likely file for a full ‘en banc’ review by the entire panel. If the HJC wins the ‘en banc’ argument the DOJ will likely appeal for an administrative stay by the Supreme Court.
(more…)

This court case is the background to remove President Trump.  Everything else, including the impeachment effort, is chaff and countermeasures. Conservatives are oblivious.
Today the DC Circuit Court heard oral arguments from House legal subcontractors representing lawmakers, in their attempt to unseal grand jury testimony and documents from the Mueller investigation. [Remember, the subcontracted lawyers were part of Nancy Pelosi’s changed House rules in 2018… These moments were all pre-planned.]

To give further indications of the landscape, U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr sent his weakest constitutional lawyers, Mark Freeman, Justice Department Civil Division Appellate Staff Director, and Deputy Asst Attorney General Hashim Mooppan to face-off against Douglas Letter, U.S. House of Representatives General Counsel, and approximately two dozen House contracted lawyers.
The hearing lasted for an hour and thirty-seven minutes.  [Full Audio Here] The three panel judges are tackling the unprecedented attempt by House lawyers to gain access to the Mueller material.
During one segment of the hearing House Lawyer Douglas Letter discussed the serious possibility of sending armed House officers to the DOJ to engage in a gun battle with the Dept. of Justice if needed. Not joking – serious stuff:
(more…)

2020 is the year when a variety of prior democrat operations will converge with a single goal in mind.  Predictably we will see several years of prior effort beginning to merge, and it begins today.

NOTE: For interested readers it will be impossible for me to summarize the background for each step prior to putting the next puzzle piece into place.  Therefore I strongly suggest bookmarking posts for later reference because it would take tens of thousands of words to understand for anyone who steps into the light mid-way through. [Just an FYI]

Tomorrow, January 3rd, 2020, the House Judiciary Committeee (HJC) will be presenting oral arguments in the DC court of appeals for their effort to obtain the Mueller grand jury information [6(e) material], and also compel testimony of former White House counsel Don McGahn.
The House has a group of dozens of various DOJ and former Obama officials working on their behalf.  That House network also has several currently employed DOJ, FBI, State Department and Intelligence Community officials feeding them information on current real-time events.   The HJC are currently arguing the Mueller material and the McGahn testimony are needed for the impeachment trial of President Trump.
If the HJC team wins the argument to the three member DC Appellate Court, the DOJ will likely file for a full ‘en blanc’ review by the entire panel.  If the HJC wins the ‘en blanc’ argument the DOJ will likely appeal for an administrative stay by the Supreme Court.
(more…)

Former representative Trey Gowdy appears on Fox News for a discussion of the current impeachment process and his outlook for the Senate trial. Mr. Gowdy spent some time with President Trump last weekend, but states he will not be part of the legal team moving forward.

Senator Ted Cruz appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to break down the likely procedural process for an impeachment trial in the upper chamber.
Senator Cruz walks through the likely scenario based on current Senate rules of impeachment. It should be noted the rules are subject to changes at any time by the Senate.
Additionally, Senator Cruz discusses the specific points of each article of impeachment which make the construct weak; hence, the Pelosi, Nadler and Lawfare effort to delay sending the articles and gather more evidence.

Presidential candidate Joe Biden was asked today what he would do if he received a subpoena from the Senate and Supreme Court Justice John Roberts.
Holding himself up as an example of a particularly entitled class of DC persons who are above the law, candidate Joe Biden replied he would defy any judicial subpoena.

IOWA – Former Vice President Joe Biden confirmed Friday he would not comply with a subpoena to testify in a Senate trial of President Donald Trump.
[…] Testifying before the Senate on the matter would take attention away from Trump and the allegations against him, Biden said. Not even that “thug” Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney and former New York City mayor, has accused Biden of doing anything but his job, the former vice president said. Biden also said any attempt to subpoena him would be on “specious” grounds, and he predicted it wouldn’t come to that. (read more)

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) holds confirmation authority over leaders appointed to the intelligence community.  Chairman Burr and Vice-Chairman Warner participated in the IC effort to target and remove President Trump from office.
You might remember recently how Burr and Warner would not support Rep. John Ratcliffe for Director of National intelligence under the auspices of Ratcliffe not having enough “experience” within intelligence operations.  However, those same “experience” concerns were absent when they approved dirty ICIG nominee Michael Atkinson.

Reminding ourselves how ICIG Atkinson manipulated the ‘whistle-blower’ regulations to permit hearsay from CIA operative Eric Ciaramella; and knowing the primary concern of Senator Warner was to cover his own involvement in the soft coup effort in 2017; it is interesting to go back to the 2018 confirmation hearing of Atkinson and review the focus:

Senator Mark Warner […] You’re also aware that this Committee is leading the review into the Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. During this hearing I want to hear assurances from both of you that you will fully cooperate with this review and provide this Committee with all the information requested in a timely fashion.
Mr. Atkinson, as the Inspector General of the Intel Community your job is especially critical because of the nature of the material that they handle every day, whistleblowers within the IC generally can’t go public to expose misbehavior and misuse of official resources. We the Congress and the American people will depend upon you as an independent agent of accountability for the Office of the DNI and, for that matter, for the whole intel community.

(more…)

Logical thought is antithetical to the interests of the coup-plotters.  Nuance and obfuscation are their shields; that’s why they, writ large, will not release the classified documents. A common sense American Thinker article cuts through the chaff and countermeasures for many interests:
[…] The implications of intercepting the communications of a U.S. citizen who is associated with the political campaign of a candidate seeking the presidency rings nearly every “bell” in the FBIs and Attorney General’s Guidelines for sensitive investigations. As discussed in the IG report, by regulation, these cases cannot be initiated without the written approval of the Director and the Attorney General. 

In addition to the approval obviously granted by the Director and AG, the IGs report identified the following additional high level officials who reviewed and approved the Page FISA affidavit:  “NSD’s Acting Assistant Attorney General, NSD’s Deputy Assistant Attorney General with oversight over 01, 01’s Operations Section Chief and Deputy Section Chief, the DAG, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, and the Associate Deputy Attorney General responsible for ODAG’s national security portfolio.”
The suggestion that somehow, seventeen significant errors, omissions of fact, falsehoods, or deliberate misrepresentations made their way into a FISA affidavit/s (accidentally, at the hand of an anonymous case agent) and then were not immediately noted and corrected throughout the course of this exceptional review process is simply not believable. ~ Continue Reading